Well obviously the infrastructure is worse, such as older buildings, worse technology, lack of heating, worse and older textbooks, etc.

If those schools had newer facilities, nicer computers, and newer textbooks, performance would shoot up to levels comparable to an average white or asian-heavy suburban school, such that they would no longer be "the worst?" Not that I disagree that all students ought to have access to adequate facilities; disparity in educational spending is unjust.

Leon wrote:

until there is valid genetic research, genetics is probably best left out.

It's been made clear nuanced discussion this subject isn't allowed on this forum, so I'll just briefly point out this.

Quote:

IQ is a polygenic trait under normal circumstances according to recent research.[3] However, certain single gene genetic disorders can severely affect intelligence, with phenylketonuria as an example.[4]
Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9 (of a maximum of 1.0).

There is really no serious question as to whether intelligence is linked to genetics. The only serious question is to what degree that is true. I think we can leave the rest unsaid.

Well obviously the infrastructure is worse, such as older buildings, worse technology, lack of heating, worse and older textbooks, etc.

If those schools had newer facilities, nicer computers, and newer textbooks, performance would shoot up to levels comparable to an average white or asian-heavy suburban school, such that they would no longer be "the worst?" Not that I disagree that all students ought to have access to adequate facilities; disparity in educational spending is unjust.

Leon wrote:

until there is valid genetic research, genetics is probably best left out.

It's been made clear nuanced discussion this subject isn't allowed on this forum, so I'll just briefly point out this.

Quote:

IQ is a polygenic trait under normal circumstances according to recent research.[3] However, certain single gene genetic disorders can severely affect intelligence, with phenylketonuria as an example.[4]
Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9 (of a maximum of 1.0).

There is really no serious question as to whether intelligence is linked to genetics. The only serious question is to what degree that is true. I think we can leave the rest unsaid.

Again, most modern geneticists do not see race as a valid category, but yes let's just leave it there. Only one way to find out about schools, but remember that their parents went through the inferior schools, imprisoned during the war in drugs, less likely to have a stable job, so obviously it would take time to make up for list ground. Even if they don't become the best, it's obviously worthwhile.

Look, we won't ever agree about sex or race obviously, but if you are implying that one racial group is genetically less intelligent you better have some pretty strong science to back it up. As far as I'm aware that doesn't exist at the present. Anyways in order to not violate tos we should just leave it at that.

In 2008, the city of detroit spend $13,000 per pupil on high-school education, yet almost half the city's population is functionally illiterate. The idea that you can solve this problem through money is hopelessly naive.

Study Finds 47% Of Detroit Residents Are Functionally Illiterate

"The report notes that half of the illiterate population has either a high school diploma or a GED. That’s beside the point. Virtually the entire illiterate population has completed elementary school, the level at which reading is theoretically taught. That’s seven years of schooling (k-6), at a cost of roughly $100,000, for… nothing"

In 2008, the city of detroit spend $13,000 per pupil on high-school education, yet almost half the city's population is functionally illiterate. The idea that you can solve this problem through money is hopelessly naive.

Study Finds 47% Of Detroit Residents Are Functionally Illiterate

"The report notes that half of the illiterate population has either a high school diploma or a GED. That’s beside the point. Virtually the entire illiterate population has completed elementary school, the level at which reading is theoretically taught. That’s seven years of schooling (k-6), at a cost of roughly $100,000, for… nothing"

The idea that money is the sole answer is naive, as is the idea it has nothing to do with educational outcomes. You give a figure for one year, which is pretty meaningless without knowing if that was the previous amount. If adults received far less funding then the 2008 figure is useless. Also not so long ago it was easy to get a factory job in Detroit, so literacy probably wasn't that important in the past.

Despite this astounding price tag—$29,409 for the 2009–2010 school year, to be exact, compared to the national average of just under $12,500 (both figures are total expenditures calculated on a per-pupil basis, including capital outlays)—the graduation rate for D.C. students hovers around 60 percent, well below the nationwide average of 74 percent. Math and reading scores are also among the lowest in the country.

Despite this astounding price tag—$29,409 for the 2009–2010 school year, to be exact, compared to the national average of just under $12,500 (both figures are total expenditures calculated on a per-pupil basis, including capital outlays)—the graduation rate for D.C. students hovers around 60 percent, well below the nationwide average of 74 percent. Math and reading scores are also among the lowest in the country.

You can spend all the money you want, but if the children are barely socialized and the parents feckless then it's not going to do much good.

Again talking about 1 year, or even a few years, in one or two cities isn't really that statistically interesting or relevant. It obviously matters what that money is spent on, my understanding of public schools is that a massive amount of money is spent on administration, and other non-educational things. I'm not saying that money is the only thing that demonstrates a schools quality, or that giving more money is the key, just that it is one obvious difference. Your basic premise as a whole, though is wrong.

"
1. Does money matter? Yes. On average, aggregate measures of per-pupil spending are positively associated with improved or higher student outcomes. In some studies, the size of this effect is larger than in others and, in some cases, additional funding appears to matter more for some students than others. Clearly, there are other factors that may moderate the influence of funding on student outcomes, such as how that money is spent – in other words, money must be spent wisely to yield benefits. But, on balance, in direct tests of the relationship between financial resources and student outcomes, money matters.

2. Do schooling resources that cost money matter? Yes. Schooling resources which cost money, including class size reduction or higher teacher salaries, are positively associated with student outcomes. Again, in some cases, those effects are larger than others and there is also variation by student population and other contextual variables. On the whole, however, the things that cost money benefit students, and there is scarce evidence that there are more cost-effective alternatives.

3. Do state school finance reforms matter? Yes. Sustained improvements to the level and distribution of funding across local public school districts can lead to improvements in the level and distribution of student outcomes. While money alone may not be the answer, more equitable and adequate allocation of financial inputs to schooling provide a necessary underlying condition for improving the equity and adequacy of outcomes. The available evidence suggests that appropriate combinations of more adequate funding with more accountability for its use may be most promising.
While there may in fact be better and more efficient ways to leverage the education dollar toward improved student outcomes, we do know the following:

Many of the ways in which schools currently spend money do improve student outcomes.
When schools have more money, they have greater opportunity to spend productively. When they don’t, they can’t.
Arguments that across-the-board budget cuts will not hurt outcomes are completely unfounded.
In short, money matters, resources that cost money matter, and more equitable distribution of school funding can improve outcomes. Policymakers would be well-advised to rely on high-quality research to guide the critical choices they make regarding school finance."

Despite this astounding price tag—$29,409 for the 2009–2010 school year, to be exact, compared to the national average of just under $12,500 (both figures are total expenditures calculated on a per-pupil basis, including capital outlays)—the graduation rate for D.C. students hovers around 60 percent, well below the nationwide average of 74 percent. Math and reading scores are also among the lowest in the country.

You can spend all the money you want, but if the children are barely socialized and the parents feckless then it's not going to do much good.

1. Yes, it is crazy how much money is poured into DC schools. I wonder if any of that $29K include grants that have been given to DC for testing and charter schools. The article doesn't mention that info. Not justifying it, just mean maybe it isn't all public money and maybe not all of it is for only public schools (although it does mention DC's voucher program and implies that isn't included in the number, so who knows).

2. The way DC is changing, DC schools will be changing a lot in the next decade regardless of how much more (or less) money is poured into them. Obviously this goes towards your argument, but more stable, well-off families are moving in and the "barely socialized" are getting pushed out. Unfortunately the ones getting pushed out first are the home owners who have more stable roots (ie the lower middle class who make a killing selling their homes, then go out to the suburbs) who aren't the cause of such bad schools.

Anyway, what will be interesting is to see what happens to schools in next door Prince Georges County, the wealthiest predominately black county in the country. Will they get worse after this steady migration of poor blacks from DC? Or will their impact be dilluted around the area? Or possibly integrated by those around them?

Ok, ramble over. I'm just fascinated by the quickly changing city (30K people moved here the last two years alone!) and curious how it will play out. White people in my neighborhood were a substantial minority when I moved here (25-30% I'd guess), but now it is closer to 50% and probably almost no longer a minority. All the newcomers are also in their 20s and 30s. Quick change in 3 freaking years.

It is clear that teaching is the most important thing. I'd guess your average Detroit and DC teacher, compared to your average Grosse Point teacher (a rich area right next to Detroit) and your average Bethesda teacher (rich suburb adjacent to DC) would have a poorer evaluation. I think the good teachers in places such as Detroit and DC get burned out and either a) move to a "calmer" district b) leave teaching all together due to burn out and a lack of support.

Also, I am not familiar with DC or Detroit school administrations, but I know one problem that plagues Oakland (also has crappy schools) is a bloated bureaucracy that sucks up all the resources and is very useless for the most part. So while on paper it looks like all this money is getting spent on students, it is in fact just getting sucked up by admin people who contribute little. I would not be surprised if a similar situation is in DC or Detroit. There is a reason the DC school board lost power and only meets to "advise" the school chancellor.

I guess my point is there are a ton of problems plaguing our education system. The good news is everyone is talking about it and attempts at reform are being made. While a lot of the reforms probably won't work (and many knew that to beging with unfortunately), at least there is some effort out there and at least a handful should be successful.

Ok, I'm really done this time, I promise. Obviously I find this topic to be infinitely more interesting than gun control.

Regardless of where one stands on the Second Amendment and gun control, it is not unreasonable to suggest the Obama administration complicity or direct oversight of an incident that has in very short order sparked a national debate on the very topic—and not coincidentally remains a key piece of Obama’s political platform.

Regardless of where one stands on the Second Amendment and gun control, it is not unreasonable to suggest the Obama administration complicity or direct oversight of an incident that has in very short order sparked a national debate on the very topic—and not coincidentally remains a key piece of Obama’s political platform.

A man who found six children in his driveway in Newtown, Conn., after their teacher had been shot and killed in last month's school massacre has become the target of conspiracy theorists who believe the shootings were staged.

New York recently passed new laws. Sandy Hook was a turning point. This is just the beginning.

"The new laws include a statewide gun registry and a uniform licensing standard, altering the current system in which each county or municipality sets its own standard.Residents are now restricted to purchasing ammunition magazines that carry seven bullets, rather than 10."
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/15/us/new-york-gun-bill/index.html

NEW YORK (WABC) -- A troubling oversight has been found within New York State's sweeping new gun laws.

The ban on having high-capacity magazines, as it's written, would also include law enforcement officers.

Quote:

The Patrolman's Benevolent Association President released a statement saying, "The PBA is actively working to enact changes to this law that will provide the appropriate exemptions from the law for active and retired law enforcement officers."

Yeah, because when you're a retired cop you're not a citizen now - you're forever still special.

But it's okay, because it'll be illegal to have a magazine of over seven or whatever so we can protect the children. We have to do it for the children, don't forget.

all those little defenseless innocent children shot dead at point blank! shot dead while they were begging for their lives. they just wanted to follow their parents instructions which was follow the teacher and learn what they were telling them about how to live and succeed. then, some dysfunctional product of your american gun-slinging asshole society shot them to death. gee, isn't that the truth? the elementary school teachers were shot to death, too. isn't that the truth? isn't that the truth?